On Thursday, 3 May 2007 10:41, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 22:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > +void hibernation_set_ops(struct hibernation_ops *ops)
> > +{
> > + if (ops && !(ops->prepare && ops->enter && ops->finish)) {
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "Wrong definition of hibernation operations! "
> > + "Using defaults\n");
> > + return;
> > + }
>
> Why not BUG_ON here as I had before? I don't see much point in giving a
> runtime warning, and the docs clearly state that you must assign all
> three items. Oh, I see I had a bug before when ops was NULL, but you can
> still do
> BUG_ON(ops && !(ops->prepare && ops->enter && ops->finish));
Well, BUG_ON() is extremely user-unfriendly, and it'd trigger even if the user
actually didn't intend to suspend at all.
IMO this is not a "we can't continue if that condition is not satisfied"
situation.
> > - pr_debug("PM: suspend-to-disk mode set to '%s'\n",
> > - pm_disk_modes[mode]);
> > + if (!error)
> > + pr_debug("PM: suspend-to-disk mode set to '%s'\n",
> > + hibernation_modes[mode]);
>
> Isn't that an unrelated bugfix ;) just kidding
You mean the 'if (!error)'? Well ... ;-)
> Looks good to me but I haven't checked the acpi in detail. If I
> remember, I'll try to give it all a go on my G5 later today.
OK
Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
